Del. Nick Freitas' guns speech goes viral.

[Neph]

This guy is 100% full of shit.

 

[FacePunch]

LOL keep lashing out buddy. I'm sure it's therapeutic for you.

Says the guy who just posted this crying bitch of a speech. Get a grip.

 

[phipps66]

This is what I mean though. It is a complicated discussion, that requires time and thought. Not some ass running through all his talking points without anybody to discuss the obvious holes with.

And that's why, on the Federal level, nothing ever does, or will be done about gun control.

 

[machidafan99]

His best point was on how a gun can dissuade a criminal and violence even if it is not fired.

 

[Neph]

His best point was on how a gun can dissuade a criminal and violence even if it is not fired.

Does it really?

In the school shooting officer didn't even go in, and he (and the three others) were trained. How many average joes are going to be wild west fast drawing badasses and stopping a guy with a knife demanding money? How many school shootings have been averted despite continual increase in arms? Is there any statistic that this guy can present that supports his argument?

I can show some things that don't support the argument. The rates of violent crimes are not lower in the US. The rates of crimes with guns are ridiculously high, higher than any other first world country.

Surely if guns were averting crime these things wouldn't be true, but they are.

 

[machidafan99]

Does it really?

In the school shooting officer didn't even go in, and he (and the three others) were trained. How many average joes are going to be wild west fast drawing badasses and stopping a guy with a knife demanding money? How many school shootings have been averted despite continual increase in arms? Is there any statistic that this guy can present that supports his argument?

I can show some things that don't support the argument. The rates of violent crimes are not lower in the US. The rates of crimes with guns are ridiculously high, higher than any other first world country.

Surely if guns were averting crime these things wouldn't be true, but they are.

We'll never have accurate statistics. Even a sign like this can make a bum criminal think twice

 

[DespicablePeep]

If you take places where you don´t have borders issues, Japan, UK and Australia, having strict gun control works. The rest of the world where guns are easy for criminals shows that more legal guns reduces crime rate.

Its not about wild west or being badass, criminals are less bold in countries with more legal guns.

Brazil has a murder rate of 27 per 100K, some states go as high as 60 per 100K, and we have almost no guns, the law is very strict even for having a gun at home and there is no legal carry, unless you work for a security company.

Does it really?

In the school shooting officer didn't even go in, and he (and the three others) were trained. How many average joes are going to be wild west fast drawing badasses and stopping a guy with a knife demanding money? How many school shootings have been averted despite continual increase in arms? Is there any statistic that this guy can present that supports his argument?

I can show some things that don't support the argument. The rates of violent crimes are not lower in the US. The rates of crimes with guns are ridiculously high, higher than any other first world country.

Surely if guns were averting crime these things wouldn't be true, but they are.

 

[ultramanhyata]

I doubt you read the whole pile of shit, I stopped reading when he said welfare state breaks families apart.

Everyone knows it's impossible to adequately address the importance of the right to bear arms without attacking entitlements. The two issues are deeply entangled.

 

[ultramanhyata]

From his FB:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Freitas

As Del. Nick Freitas' guns speech goes viral, Virginia Democrats say slavery remarks reopened racial wounds


http://www.roanoke.com/news/politic...cle_e7d28f66-d1e8-5f41-8419-05c4b1333598.html

@irish_thug @Teppodama

Just one minute in and this guy had already name checked abortion and the welfare state. If he could have found a way to somehow wedge teh gays into that opening he would have had a right-wing redneck trifecta.

 

[curryjunkie]

Okay, let's start at the very beginning. He starts off by saying that these shootings occur in gun-free school zones. The obvious hack-political point being made there is that more guns would make them more safe.

That's untrue, many schools have SROs on campus with guns. The SRO in the most recent situation stayed outside while the shooting occurred.

He then says gun-control doesn't work because Chicago and Baltimore have high murder rates. He fails to mention that 60% of the guns used in Chicago crimes come from outside of the state. Meaning, people buy guns where there is no gun control, and use them in cities with gun control.

He says the shooters come from broken homes, which are encouraged in some way by Democrats. That is just a ridiculous statement, the shooters come from a massively diverse background. Some rich, some poor, some white, some black, some Hispanic, etc. It is just a dumb point.

He somehow ties abortion to mass shootings, without really specifying how that makes any sense.

He literally begins by running through talking points, that have obvious counter points, and completely ignores the fact that these debates have already occurred. That is called grandstanding. Saying things people have already said, that have already been countered, without offering a single new response.

so ....basically the same tired old shit,with a bit of batshit crazy thrown in,
thanks for the notes, now i dont have to sit through it

 

[Neph]

If you take places where you don´t have borders issues, Japan, UK and Australia, having strict gun control works. The rest of the world where guns are easy for criminals shows that more legal guns reduces crime rate.

Its not about wild west or being badass, criminals are less bold in countries with more legal guns.

Brazil has a murder rate of 27 per 100K, some states go as high as 60 per 100K, and we have almost no guns, the law is very strict even for having a gun at home and there is no legal carry, unless you work for a security company.

According to US Governments Accountability Report (news site here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ove-americas-gun-laws/?utm_term=.0dac12d55790 ) in Mexico 70% of the guns recovered from crime scenes actually originate from the USA. So I don't buy that there are a zillion illegal guns crossing the border... except in the opposite direction that sometimes is asserted!

As for "criminals are less bold" in countries with more guns, I think you'll need some kind of citation. Compare it against another first world country and see how the US stands. I'm going to add the following for murder and non-negligent manslaughter (intentional homicide) per 100,000 citizens, taken in 2013. Note that these countries have open borders...

Austria: 0.42
Germany: 0.9
UK, England/Wales: 2.6
UK, Scotland: 4.66
USA: 4.5

Next is rape

Austria: 9
Germany: 9
UK, England/Wales: 18
UK, Scotland: 20
USA: 26.8

Next is robbery

Austria: 61
Germany: 64
UK, England/Wales: 157
UK, Scotland: 60
USA: 113

Next is Aggravated Assault

Austria: 47
Germany: 88
UK, England/Wales (not recorded)
UK, Scotland: 117
USA: 241

In addition:

According to a 2013 report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), between 2005 and 2012, the average homicide rate in the U.S. was 4.9 per 100,000 inhabitants compared to the average rate globally, which was 6.2. However, the U.S. had much higher murder rates compared to other countries identified in the report as "developed", which all had average homicide rates of 0.8 per 100,000

So by this report you are over 6 times more likely to be murdered in the US than in other developed countries (on average). Remember, this is the country with the highest gun ownership in the world.

These figures come from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States and there are appropriate references at the bottom should you wish to look further.

 

[BangersAndSmash]

His speech is disingenuous basically from jump street because he calls for an open and honest debate of data, analysis, and facts while there's a law on the books that hampers research on gun violence if it shows a link between gun ownership and bad outcomes.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/02/gun-violence-public-health/553430/

Then he accuses the other side of the aisle of not being able to stop at increased background checks or more readily available information in a database. He insists they will only stop when all guns are banned out of the country, so that's an excuse to accept no changes. Great fucking attitude mate, real honest debate you got going there.

 

[Teppodama]

Okay, let's start at the very beginning. He starts off by saying that these shootings occur in gun-free school zones. The obvious hack-political point being made there is that more guns would make them more safe.

That's untrue, many schools have SROs on campus with guns. The SRO in the most recent situation stayed outside while the shooting occurred.

He then says gun-control doesn't work because Chicago and Baltimore have high murder rates. He fails to mention that 60% of the guns used in Chicago crimes come from outside of the state. Meaning, people buy guns where there is no gun control, and use them in cities with gun control.

He says the shooters come from broken homes, which are encouraged in some way by Democrats. That is just a ridiculous statement, the shooters come from a massively diverse background. Some rich, some poor, some white, some black, some Hispanic, etc. It is just a dumb point.

He somehow ties abortion to mass shootings, without really specifying how that makes any sense.

He literally begins by running through talking points, that have obvious counter points, and completely ignores the fact that these debates have already occurred. That is called grandstanding. Saying things people have already said, that have already been countered, without offering a single new response.

1. I don't believe his implication in making that statement is the advocating of increased gun ownership. It's pretty much a statement showing that the location already has existing gun control in place which obviously wasn't working.

2. Yes, there was an armed officer there. His actions go to show that ultimately only you are responsible for your safety.

3. And the majority of that crime is committed with handguns, not rifles. The proposed new control of not selling rifles to anyone under 21 does nothing to change that fact.

4. Their racial diversity speaks nothing toward the state of their family lives. Interesting you choose to bring race and economics into it to refute his statement. In and of itself, is he wrong?

5. No, he makes the statement that comparing pro-gun advocates and officials to being controlled and bought by the NRA would be like comparing pro-abortion advocates and officials to being controlled and bought by Planned Parenthood. It's a valid comparison. Mass shootings have nothing to do with what he actually said at that point.

...if we want to have an open and honest debate, I am all for that. Let's do that. But it does start with a certain degree of mutual respect. It starts with a certain degree of not assuming that "the only reason why we believe in the Second Amendment is because the NRA paid us off." Well if that's the sort of logic you want to use, why don't you go take a look at how much money the NRA spends and how much money Planned Parenthood spends. Because when I get up here and I talk about abortion, I don't assume that you're all bought and paid for by Planned Parenthood. I don't assume you're horrible people because I disagree with you on a policy position. I assume that you have deep convictions and that we can have an argument and a debate about it. But if you're not willing to reciprocate that level of respect, well don't be surprised when it becomes more difficult to talk about these things.

6. He agreed that talks had already begun. He says what he believes such talks would and should entail as far as the facts under discussion and that influence the issue at hand. He then goes on through his speech to state what he perceives as relevant issues on the topic that should be included in such discussion. He then makes his statement on how he believes the opposition attempts to counter such information not with facts, but with its own emotional based rhetoric and how that does nothing to encourage the Republican side he represents that the Democrats are willing to discuss in good faith.

You can read whatever you want into his intentions about what he said but it's pretty clear cut throughout the transcript. "Reading between the lines" bares with it a certain amount of preconceived notion and personal prejudice.

We've all been bombarded with these discussions and heard myriad takes on why and what and yadda yadda yadda. What I have yet to read or hear from pro-gun control are successful statistics, truthful reporting of the actual firearms used in most of these events, secondary or even tertiary solutions for when simple regulation isn't sufficient to keep a criminal from killing, robbing, raping or in anyway harming a law abiding citizen.

All of this is actually rather pointless anyway. The 2nd is a guaranteed right. You may attempt to nibble at it all you want but you won't gut it. You won't repel it and those that support it will fight you vocally and legally every step of the way and in the event that isn't enough, very likely physically as well.

 

[nac386]

1. I don't believe his implication in making that statement is the advocating of increased gun ownership. It's pretty much a statement showing that the location already has existing gun control in place which obviously wasn't working.

Having a location with gun control is obviously offset by having a location a few miles away without it. That is the point that needs to be addressed. Repeating a trite talking point like that does nothing but annoy people who want to hear a deeper analysis of what is actually occurring.

2. Yes, there was an armed officer there. His actions go to show that ultimately only you are responsible for your safety.

Then what? This thought has no conclusion. It's not like we can give little kids guns and say, "Okay little Johnny, don't rely on the professionals, only you can protect yourself in school."

Or say, "Okay everyone, make sure you bring rifles to the concert, because if somebody begins firing on you from afar, we'll need good guys with guns with exceptional accuracy!"

So saying, "Only you are responsible for your safety" is nothing more than a bumper sticker. It's a hollow thing to say, and requires a whole lot more attention.

3. Any the majority of that crime is committed with handguns, not rifles. The proposed new control of not selling rifles to anyone under 21 does nothing to change that fact.

This does not relate to anything that I said.

4. Their racial diversity speaks nothing toward the state of their family lives. Interesting you choose to bring race and economics into it to refute his statement. In and of itself, is he wrong?

He said the shooters come from broken homes. I said that shooters come from all walks of life, then listed all socioeconomic classes, all races, etc. I was 100% on point and accurate. The point being, the shooters come from all different backgrounds and trying to make a blanket statement regarding their background is idiotic.

5. No, he makes the statement that comparing pro-gun advocates and officials to being controlled and bought by the NRA would be like comparing pro-abortion advocates and officials to being controlled and bought by Planned Parenthood. It's a valid comparison. Mass shootings have nothing to do with what he actually said at that point.

No, he mentions abortion way before that. Go back and read it again. He refers to the "abortion industry" early on.

6. He agreed that talks had already begun. He says what he such talks would and should entail as far as the facts under discussion and that influence the issue at hand. He then goes on through his speech to state what he perceives as relevant issues on the topic that should be included in such discussion. He then makes his statement on how believes the opposition attempts to counter such information not with facts, but with its own emotional based rhetoric.

You can read whatever you want into his intentions about what he said but it's pretty clear cut throughout the transcript. "Reading between the lines" bares with it a certain amount of preconceived notion and personal prejudice.

We've all been bombarded with these discussions and heard myriad takes on why and what and yadda yadda yadda. What I have yet to read or hear though from pro-gun control are successful statistics, truthful reporting of the actual firearms used in most of these events, secondary or even tertiary solutions for when simple regulation isn't sufficient to keep a criminal from killing, robbing, raping or in anyway harming a law abiding citizen.

All of this actually rather pointless anyway. The 2nd is a guaranteed right. You may attempt to nibble at it all you want but you won't gut it. You won't repel it and those that support it will fight you vocally and legally every step of the way and in the event that isn't enough, very likely physically as well.

I am a gun owner, and I believe people should be able to own guns. That has nothing to do with this guy's speech, which was grandstanding and making exactly zero new points. He added nothing to the conversation. He repeated talking points that have always been around, without addressing the counter points, he brought up historical atrocities related to the Democratic party, right before saying we should be respectful, etc.

He's a hack. I found his entire speech to be redundant. He basically made a list of all of his party's talking points and read them out loud. Not an impressive moment, just a political opportunity.

 

[Teppodama]

Having a location with gun control is obviously offset by having a location a few miles away without it. That is the point that needs to be addressed. Repeating a trite talking point like that does nothing but annoy people who want to hear a deeper analysis of what is actually occurring.



Then what? This thought has no conclusion. It's not like we can give little kids guns and say, "Okay little Johnny, don't rely on the professionals, only you can protect yourself in school."

Or say, "Okay everyone, make sure you bring rifles to the concert, because if somebody begins firing on you from afar, we'll need good guys with guns with exceptional accuracy!"

So saying, "Only you are responsible for your safety" is nothing more than a bumper sticker. It's a hollow thing to say, and requires a whole lot more attention.



This does not relate to anything that I said.



He said the shooters come from broken homes. I said that shooters come from all walks of life, then listed all socioeconomic classes, all races, etc. I was 100% on point and accurate. The point being, the shooters come from all different backgrounds and trying to make a blanket statement regarding their background is idiotic.



No, he mentions abortion way before that. Go back and read it again. He refers to the "abortion industry" early on.




I am a gun owner, and I believe people should be able to own guns. That has nothing to do with this guy's speech, which was grandstanding and making exactly zero new points. He added nothing to the conversation. He repeated talking points that have always been around, without addressing the counter points, he brought up historical atrocities related to the Democratic party, right before saying we should be respectful, etc.

He's a hack. I found his entire speech to be redundant. He basically made a list of all of his party's talking points and read them out loud. Not an impressive moment, just a political opportunity.

We are simply not going to agree on either his speech, its purpose, or a likely hypothetical solution to any of the various issues surrounding this subject. We just don't interpret it the same way and that's fine.

 

[DespicablePeep]

As for "criminals are less bold" in countries with more guns, I think you'll need some kind of citation. Compare it against another first world country and see how the US stands. I'm going to add the following for murder and non-negligent manslaughter (intentional homicide) per 100,000 citizens, taken in 2013. Note that these countries have open borders....

Those countries mentioned have some particulars, most have no culture of gun ownership and no border issues, which makes it possible to have fewer guns circulating and their population is more homogeneous.

A full gun ban is not the way for the US to be safer, I think its more about minorities having better life and laws to restrict certain type of people from owning guns.

In my country when guns got impossible to own legally crime simply sky rocketed.

I´m not going to provide stats because most of the stuff in from far right sources, but a booked called "more guns, less crime" by John Lott is pretty much the basis for most of the stuff out there.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

 

[lfd0311]

I can't stand political grandstanding completely laced with half-truths and intentional ignorance. They all do this. There is nothing more off-putting than playing dumb and insulting people to make a political point.

So you're pro gun now?

 

[nac386]

So you're pro gun now?

"Pro-gun" is a meaningless statement. What exactly are you asking here? And are you insinuating that I have changed my stance in some way?

 

[lfd0311]

"Pro-gun" is a meaningless statement. What exactly are you asking here? And are you insinuating that I have changed my stance in some way?

Actually I was mocking your position that the Right is being disingenious on this subject, but since we're at it, why don't you explain where this man was telling half truths?

 

[nac386]

Actually I was mocking your position that the Right is being disingenious on this subject, but since we're at it, why don't you explain where this man was telling half truths?

Lol, have you skipped this entire thread?

And how was your statement one that mocked my position that the man in the video is being disingenuous?